Article I

Economists would argue that our economic system is already functional. It is allegedly guided by Adam Smith's invisible hand, to maximize welfare for all. It is nearer the truth to say that market forces resemble Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons," where a shepherd increasing his flock by one animal reaps the benefit of +1 and all other shepherds using the same pasture suffer a grass shortage of only -1/total number of shepherds. Rational shepherds will all increase their flocks, until there is no recourse for the environmental degradation.

To remedy this inequity, Hardin recommended mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon. If society agrees that exploitation of a certain common resource is a problem, then the democratic method can yield an agreeable punitive solution. A threatened population of Elephants for example becomes protected by law, and then arise the poachers, members of society who never agreed to the coercion. The mutual nature of Hardin's coercion will never be palatable for one and all. While this concept works to limit access to resources that are indeed limited, i.e. parking permits for a parking lot with limited parking spaces, it does not limit the desire to exploit these resources that is inherent in people's rational minds. Only those who do not profit from access to a resource will forgo their right to it.

Under Subsistence Economy, there must be new ethics to replace this "rationality".

(1) Dessert.
It is imperative that the ideal economic system be built on the belief that all those participating in or affected by that economy deserve a subsistence level of wealth and no more. There should be consequences for those who rise above the subsistence level, and help for those who fall below.

(2)Recognition of All Things as Common Resources.
All things are connected. All people own an equal share of the earth. All species have a right to continued existence. All natural processes have a right to continued existence. This includes but is not limited to the singularly human ecosystems such as cities, as well as the wilder examples, if any exist that are indeed wilder. The negative effects of resource extraction are spread across all people and all points on the globe. The positive effects of said extraction should be distributed similarly.

(3)Replacement Ethic.
It follows from the belief in all things as common resources that no single member of a subsistence economy has the luxury of consumption without bearing the responsibility of equal contribution.

(4) Price Reflects Cost.
Money itself is only the tool to relate the value of all goods and services to each other. It follows from the replacement ethic, that when money is exchanged for a good or service, the consumer absorbs the responsibility for all the costs of its production by way of replacing what was lost. An item that harms livelihoods should cost enough to compensate those who lost their livelihoods. One that harms forests should contain the cost of rehabilitating that forest.

(5) Thrift.
There remains a distinction between consumption and subsistence. Subsistence is the acquisition of enough material wealth to be happy and healthy. Consumption is the use of resources above and beyond a subsistence level. In an ideal economy, each member would exercise thrift, a rate of consumption that maintains satisfaction, health, and happiness and no more.

(6)Technology
Technological advances have long claimed to be for the benefit of all, but it is clear that those who profit from technology, develop it, and then create a demand for it rather than technological innovation springing from public demand. In a subsistence economy, technology will be developed in response to public demand.

(7) Trade
The purpose of trade will be to enable subsistence in places where local production does not suffice, not to make a profit. There will never be a bottle of Vermont maple syrup in New York because this inane trade contributes neither to the health, nor the happiness of the people. Much like with the development of new technology, it is often the case that trade is the impetus for consumer demand. For example, before coffee was shipped all over the world and no one knew about it, there was no demand for it and now it is a highly competetive market built on the exploitation of people and land.